On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 14:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > > However, what we have atm is enough for most folks to get some working > > audio kcontrol scenarios configured for their devices. > > Indeed, like I said I think most of what I suggested only makes sense > with a transparent remapping of control names for application usability > reasons if nothing else. PCM specification is the only thing I can see > being useful right now but that's definitely something that could just > be bolted on the side of the existing stuff, it shouldn't impact it > directly. > > What would be nice now would be to tweak the configuration file format > to support at least the control remapping, though (so it'd only support > a fixed list of target controls but it'd use the standard names, for > example). That would mean that when someone does implement more > advanced functionality there's more chance that the configuration file > format would be static. Configuration file format changes are a pain to > manage over upgrades, especially for distros, so if they can be headed > off in advance that'd be a win. I'm hoping this file format and remapping will be deprecated by the audio graphing interface (as discussed at LPC). We can still keep the same front end API to the apps though. Liam _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
